---
title: "Raleighs Robbery Suppression Initiative"
type: "pdf"
year: "2009"
canonical: "/projects/1025"
---

![img-0.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-20/img-0.jpeg)

The Raleigh Police Department's
Problem Oriented Policing Approach to
Reducing Convenience Store Robberies

In consideration for the
2009 Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence
in Problem Oriented Policing

# TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Summary Page 3
Program Description Page 4
Scanning Page 5
Analysis Page 6
Response Page 10
Assessment Page 14
Agency Information Page 22
Appendices:
(A) 2008 Robbery Offender Questionnaire
(B) 2007 Robbery Arrests and Court Dispositions
(C) RSI Brochure
(D) RSI Convenience Store Placard
(E) Suspect Description Form
(F) Robbery Checklist
(G) RPD News Flash: "U.S. Attorney's Office Receives 'Chief's Citation"

# Summary 

The Raleigh Police Department's Robbery Suppression Initiative (RSI) Problem Oriented Policing Project is focused on reducing the number of convenience store robberies in Raleigh, North Carolina. A convenience store (CS) is a retail business with primary emphasis placed on providing the public a convenient location to purchase a wide array of consumable products, such as food, beverages, and motor fuels.

In November 2007, Raleigh began to experience a noticeable increase in its CS robberies as compared to previous years. During the first quarter of 2007, CS robberies accounted for 4.7 percent of total robberies citywide. When compared to the same time period in 2008, these robberies had more than doubled, accounting for 10.8 percent of citywide CS robberies. Nationally, CS robberies account for 5.6 percent of all robberies. These statistics indicate that Raleigh's CS robberies are not only disproportionate to the city's typical robbery distribution, but also disproportionate to other jurisdictions.

In order to address this trend and learn more about CS robberies, team members interviewed CS employees, conducted environmental surveys and robbery offender interviews, and examined the effectiveness of robbery investigations. Anecdotally, we identified several symptomatic reasons to account for the increase in robberies. Therefore, in developing strategies, it was necessary to focus on more substantive responses, and our team developed a comprehensive plan focused on robbery education, prevention and suppression.

Our prevention strategies began with officers conducting personal visits and security checks at convenience stores. Officers provided store employees and operators with reference material on robbery prevention while introducing them to the Robbery Suppression Initiative (RSI). Crime prevention officers followed up by conducting Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) assessments at the 186 convenience stores within Raleigh.

RPD also increased officer training by instituting a proactive instructional class advocating a back-to-basics, street-level approach to combating robberies, and improved police response by providing officers with information pertaining to robbery trends and patterns in order to encourage communication between detectives and patrol officers.

By implementing our POP strategies, we have been able to significantly reduce Raleigh's CS robberies. Currently, first quarter 2009 statistics indicate that CS robberies account for 3.4 percent of all robberies committed in our jurisdiction as compared to 10.8 percent during the first quarter of 2008.

| $1^{\text {st }}$  Quarter | Total  Robberies | Number of CS  Robberies | CS Percentage of Total  Robberies |
| :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: |
| 2007 | 193 | 9 | $4.7 \%$ |
| 2008 | 268 | 29 | $10.8 \%$ |
| 2009 | 177 | 6 | $3.4 \%$ |

# Table of Contents

- [Summary](#summary)
- [Program Description](#program-description)
- [Scanning](#scanning)
- [Analysis](#analysis)
- [Response](#response)
- [Assessment](#assessment)
- [CONVENIENCE STORE ROBBERIES NOV07 TO APR09](#convenience-store-robberies-nov07-to-apr09)
- [CONVENIENCE STORE ROBBERIES](#convenience-store-robberies)
- [Raleigh Police Department Crime Analysis Report](#raleigh-police-department-crime-analysis-report)
  - [2008 ROBBERY OFFENDER QUESTIONNAIRE](#2008-robbery-offender-questionnaire)
- [Raleigh Police Department Crime Analysis Report](#raleigh-police-department-crime-analysis-report)
  - [2007 ROBBERY ARRESTS AND COURT DISPOSITIONS](#2007-robbery-arrests-and-court-dispositions)
- [**KEYS TO ROBBERY PREVENTION**](#keys-to-robbery-prevention)
    - [**Strong store policy**](#strong-store-policy)
    - [**Awareness**](#awareness)
    - [**Suggested tools**](#suggested-tools)
- [**Robbery Prevention For Businesses**](#robbery-prevention-for-businesses)
  - [Be Proactive](#be-proactive)
  - [Interior Opportunities](#interior-opportunities)
  - [Enforce Store Policies](#enforce-store-policies)
  - [Exterior Opportunities](#exterior-opportunities)
  - [Vulnerabilities](#vulnerabilities)
  - [During a Robbery](#during-a-robbery)
  - [After a Robbery](#after-a-robbery)
- [N O T I C E](#n-o-t-i-c-e)
  - [This Business Complies](#this-business-complies)
    - [with the Raleigh Police](#with-the-raleigh-police)
    - [Department’s Robbery](#departments-robbery)
    - [Suppression Initiative.](#suppression-initiative)
    - [2008 - 2009](#2008-2009)
- [Appendix E](#appendix-e)
- [Appendix E](#appendix-e)
- [Appendix F](#appendix-f)
  - [ROBBERY CHECKLIST](#robbery-checklist)
  - [ON SCENE SUPERVISOR TO COMPLETE APPLICABLE INFORMATION AND ENSURE THAT PROTOCOLS ARE ADHERED TO AND DOCUMENTED ACCORDINGLY](#on-scene-supervisor-to-complete-applicable-information-and-ensure-that-protocols-are-adhered-to-and-documented-accordingly)
  - [INITIAL OFFICERS ON SCENE](#initial-officers-on-scene)
  - [CRIME SCENE SECURED BY ( USE TAPE ) $\qquad$ , $\qquad$](#crime-scene-secured-by-use-tape-qquad-qquad)
  - [CRIME SCENE RECORDER $\qquad$ \& SECURITY](#crime-scene-recorder-qquad-security)
  - [CANVAS CONDUCTED BY](#canvas-conducted-by)
  - [PERIMETER UNITS ASSIGNED](#perimeter-units-assigned)
  - [REMEMBER TO](#remember-to)
- [U.S. Attorney's Office Receives 'Chief's Citation'](#us-attorneys-office-receives-chiefs-citation)

# Program Description 

Raleigh, the capital city of North Carolina, is a dynamic, fast-growing city with a population of 385,507 earning it the distinction of being the 48th largest city in the nation. Historically, Raleigh has been known for its great economy and low crime rate. In 2008, Raleigh was ranked number one on Forbes Magazine's "Best Places for Business and Careers" list - just one of many in a long list of top rankings. With this infusion of growth and notoriety, "big city" problems were sure to follow.

This was the case in early 2008, when Raleigh experienced a 40 percent increase in its overall number of reported robberies. On March 14, 2008, Police Chief Harry Dolan gave a group of departmental employees a refresher course in Problem Oriented Policing. During that presentation, a group of seven employees, sworn and civilian, utilized the SARA model for problem solving to examine the rise in robberies. This group returned in April to present its findings and recommendations for addressing Raleigh's latest crime trend to the command staff.

# Scanning 

Since the early 1990s, RPD has utilized enhanced crime analysis techniques to prepare weekly reports on criminal offenses, and maintained that data in order to provide future statistical analysis. Crime data is reviewed daily and discussed at a monthly crime strategy meeting. In early 2008, it became apparent that Raleigh was experiencing a serious increase in robberies. The team looked at what was responsible for Raleigh's increased robbery numbers, and noted that, from the first quarter of 2007 to the first quarter of 2008:

- Overall robberies increased 40\%
- Commercial robberies increased 170\%
- Convenience store robberies increased by 222\%

Analysis revealed that CS robberies were the driving force behind much of the increase. Further, in comparing quarterly data from 2007 to 2008, the proportion of commercial robberies and convenience store robberies to overall robberies increased:

- Commercial robberies were 33\% of all robberies but increased to 40\%
- Convenience store robberies were 14\% of commercial robberies and increased to 27\%

During the first quarter of 2007, 193 robberies were committed in Raleigh; CS robberies accounted for 4.7 percent of the total. During the same time period in 2008, CS robberies had more than doubled, accounting for 10.8 percent of the 268 robberies committed.

Even more alarming than the observed increase in CS robberies was the escalation of violence associated with these particular offenses. Offender violence, especially after having committed multiple robberies, quickly rose from the use of implied weapons to pushing, shoving and the pulling of hair. Firearm usage was on the increase, with suspects routinely placing weapons next to the heads of their victims. The increasingly violent behavior of these individuals, combined with their choice of weaponry, was a recipe for disaster.

It soon became commonplace to view poor-quality video images and recordings of Raleigh's robberies on the evening news. Unfortunately, the escalating violence culminated in the tragic

homicide of Stephanie Anderson, a young mother and local convenience store clerk, as she was opening her business in the early morning hours of April 10, 2008. It is for these reasons that our POP team focused on addressing the increase in CS robberies in Raleigh, thereby precipitating RPD's Robbery Suppression Initiative.

# Analysis 

In looking back at CS robberies in previous years, we learned that during the 24 months between November 2005 and October 2007, our jurisdiction experienced an average of three CS robberies per month. In the six-month period between November 2007 and April 2008, we experienced an average of 10.5 CS robberies per month. Upon review of this data, we realized that our 2008 first-quarter spike in CS robberies was part of a larger trend that began in November 2007, as illustrated in the following chart.

CONVENIENCE STORE ROBBERIES
NOVEMBER 2005 THRU APRIL 2008
Green line is 24 month average from Nov05 to Oct07 (3)
Red line is 6 month average from Nov07 to Apr08 (10.5)
![img-1.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-20/img-1.jpeg)

Nationally, CS robberies accounted for 5.6 percent of all robberies in 2007. In the UCR's population group I (larger cities of 250,000 population and over), CS robberies comprise 4.1 percent of all robberies. However, CS robbery distribution varies nationally and the South has the highest percentage of CS robberies, with 6.3 percent. In contrast, Raleigh's six-month CS robbery trend exceeded these proportions accounting for 10.8 percent of all robberies, rising from the previous 24 months' 4.5 percent; indicating that Raleigh's CS robberies were disproportionate to not only the city's typical robbery distribution, but also the national trend. Firearm usage during CS robberies for the six-month period was high at 83 percent, as compared to 58 percent for all robberies during that time period with the latter percentage being consistent throughout 2008. Nationally, firearms are used in 43 percent of robberies, while they are used in 50 percent of robberies in the South. It is important to note that Raleigh's firearm usage is disproportionately higher than other jurisdictions, which increases the potential for serious injury. During 2008, 37 percent of Raleigh's 35 homicides had a robbery motive, much higher than the national average of six percent.

Additional statistical analysis of the CS robberies revealed that 71 percent of them occurred along the city's major thoroughfares within an eight-hour time span (between 1800 and 0200 hours). The majority occurred on the weekends into early Monday morning and involved multiple offenders. The total monetary loss resulting from these robberies was valued at $\$ 36,621$; an average of $\$ 581$ per robbery, lower than the 2007 reported national average loss of $\$ 800$. What cannot be measured is the loss of human life associated with these offenses. To focus our analysis and learn more about CS robberies, our team did the following:

- Environmental surveys
- Employee interviews
- Offender interviews
- An examination of the effectiveness of robbery investigations

To determine the susceptibility of CS to robberies, the team developed an environmental survey and questionnaire to examine and assess the vulnerability of the stores to theft and to identify the types of crime prevention strategies in place.

Crime prevention officers conducted environmental surveys at 18 of the victimized CS locations, four of which had been robbed twice. The inspections revealed that many of the CS locations lacked the "natural surveillance" necessary to provide an adequate level of deterrence; store signage obstructed windows and inadequate exterior lighting provided hiding spaces for potential robbers.

Employee interviews focused on the types of robbery deterrents in place (drop safes, alarm system, video surveillance, etc.) and their likelihood to prevent a robbery. We found that store management had adequately educated their personnel on business policies, but failed to provide focused training on how to deter and react to a robbery.

Upon reviewing RPD's response to CS robberies, we found that in many cases officers sped to the scene in an effort to be the first to arrive while paying little attention to their surroundings while en route. Upon their arrival, they would secure the crime scene and wait for detectives to arrive. Case reports frequently contained vague descriptors of the suspect, clothing and vehicle. Store video footage was often grainy or nonexistent, depending on whether the manager had ever changed or replaced the videotape in the VHS recorder. Camera systems were often focused on cash registers in an attempt to discourage employee theft, rather than to capture a quality identifiable image of a robber.

Some cities and states have gone so far as to enact ordinances and statutes to address issues associated with lax store operating policies in an effort to help reduce the number of robberies. When reviewing the effectiveness of these regulations, jurisdictions initially noticed a reduction in convenience store robberies; however, the long-term effects are still being measured. Ordinances were met with resistance by store owners due to the monetary costs involved to

comply with them while seeing no significant drop in robberies. Additionally, stores receive compensation from vendors whose signs are prominently displayed in their windows. Many ordinances also require that stores register with a licensing authority, but since Raleigh has no such ordinances, our team had no idea as to how many stores were operating within the city. By reviewing alcoholic beverage permits, city licenses, and police reports, we eventually identified 186 convenience stores operating in Raleigh.

In our efforts to understand why our robbery perpetrators commit these crimes, we anecdotally identified several symptomatic reasons, such as economic strain, substance abuse problems, gang-involved youth, and impulse of the offender when presented with an opportunity for quick, easy cash. In order to substantiate our reasoning, robbery detectives administered a short questionnaire to 50 robbery suspects immediately after interviewing them about their crime(s). (See Appendix A)

Though nearly half of the suspects proclaimed their innocence or refused to answer questions, a third of the suspects acknowledged committing the robbery for financial gain while the remaining suspects gave a variety of reasons as to why they committed the offense. We found that 58 percent of the suspects arrested indicated that they were substance abusers, and 16 of these admitted alcohol and/or drug use on a daily basis. Half of the suspects reported that they were unemployed at the time of their arrest, with four being students. The remaining suspects listed a variety of vocations, with the length of employment ranging between two weeks to 11 years. Research by RPD's Gang Intelligence Unit revealed that nearly a third of our robbery offenders were validated gang members.

Another concern is the high recidivism rate and maturation into more violent crimes associated with robbery offenders. Therefore, in order to determine the effectiveness of our criminal justice system, we looked into the criminal histories of the 156 people charged in 181 robberies by the Raleigh Police Department during the last 6 months of 2007. We found that:

- 117 were convicted felons (includes all 2007 robbery adjudications)
- 278 robbery arrests in Raleigh during their criminal careers
- 946 prior felony arrests throughout their lifetime

What we found interesting during the robbery offender criminal history review was that for 44 of the 156 people arrested, robbery was their first ever offense charged. Of the 278 robbery charges adjudicated in Raleigh, 234 have a known final court disposition:

- 64 (27\%) pled guilty as charged
- 119 (51\%) pled to a lesser offense
- 51 (22\%) cases dismissed

Of those defendants that pled guilty to a lesser offense, two thirds pled to lesser felony charges while the other third pled to misdemeanors. (See Appendix B)

Over the past five years, the 16- to 20-year age group has been consistently responsible for 38 percent of all cleared robbery offenses in Raleigh. In comparing statistics of this age group with the 77 arrested CS robbers and the 2007 Robbery Arrests and Court Dispositions report, we find that CS robbers are older on average than other robbery offenders.

Due to the increase in CS robberies involving multiple older, more experienced offenders and the prevalent use of firearms during the commission of these offenses, our analysis indicates that CS robbery offenders in Raleigh present a significant risk of injury to victims through a continuing pattern of increasingly violent criminal behavior. Therefore, in order to rigorously address this problem, we must expand our avenues of approach and seek a unified effort from all stakeholders in order to reduce the number of CS robberies in Raleigh.

# Response 

In developing strategies to address the concerns identified during the analysis phase, our POP team focused on education, prevention and suppression. By offering specialized robbery prevention training to Raleigh's CS owners, managers and employees, we made them more

aware of their vulnerabilities as well as opportunities for improvement. Departmentally, we instituted a proactive robbery suppression instructional class for our officers, which in turn fueled a back-to-basics, street-level approach to combating robbery trends. By focusing on these three main objectives, we implemented the responses identified below and were able to achieve our goal of reducing the number of CS robberies within our jurisdiction.

Early on, the team felt that it was extremely important to reconnect with CS operators. Long gone are the days when patrol officers patronized local stores in order to obtain that "friendly" cup of coffee. Officers currently take full advantage of today's endless number of drive-thru restaurants while working from their in-car offices, rarely taking the opportunity to have that "out-of-car experience" that was so much appreciated by lone cashiers working the night shift at the local CS. Therefore, beat officers were instructed to immediately increase their communication with convenience store employees through security checks and interactive visits. A listing of all the city's convenience stores was distributed to each of the six police districts in order to ensure that all 186 stores were personally contacted. Supervisors emphasized the importance of this response during training classes, roll calls and management meetings while monitoring officer compliance through daily activity reports.

In conjunction with this effort, district commanders simultaneously deployed unstaffed marked patrol cars to CS locations along the major corridors within their districts. The vehicles were placed at strategic locations during peak robbery times and moved every few hours. Leaving the vehicle's parking lights on along with the in-car computers and radio allowed RPD to maintain a sense of police "omnipresence" in the area, which served to deter robberies along those corridors.

While conducting initial security checks at each CS, officers provide employees with specially created brochures containing reference material on robbery prevention for businesses while promoting the RSI program. (See Appendix C) Officers explain the educational and prevention

opportunities available to store personnel, while security evaluations and CPTED assessments of the businesses are subsequently conducted by district crime prevention (CP) officers. The CP officer's role in this response is vital in that he or she is tasked with promoting the initiative and bringing the CS into voluntary compliance. If CS operators comply with the mandatory CPTED and security measures set forth by RPD, they are eligible to participate in the initiative and allowed to prominently display RPD's RSI placard at their stores' entrances. (See Appendix D) Whether or not the CS meets standards to participate in the RSI program, CS personnel are still encouraged to attend an RPD-sponsored monthly training program. This training, developed specifically for CS employees, reinforces CPTED principles, stresses preventive measures and educates employees on methods to employ to positively affect the outcome of a robbery.

The RSI placard itself recognizes the convenience stores that have taken extra steps to afford their employees and customers a heightened level of safety and security by meeting program standards. In addition, the RSI placard offers the business a level of security in itself by indicating that the CS complies with RPD's RSI. Potential robbers would not be certain what security measures were in place to aid police in their identification and capture, or perhaps, even the likelihood of the presence of a specialized police unit to immediately apprehend them. Although no such apprehension measures were implemented, the department quickly developed, and mandated that officers attend, an educational in-service training program geared toward the identification and apprehension of robbery offenders. Departmentally, RPD had noticed a reduction in officer-initiated activity; in particular, vehicle traffic stops. The motivational RSI training that officers received focused their attention on maintaining alert assertive street patrols. During this block of instruction, officers were also educated about CPTED principles and how to identify persons who might be carrying concealed weapons. In essence, RPD changed its tactics in order to encounter and stop the suspect before he or she could commit a robbery offense.

Once officers received this specialized training, they were allowed to participate in paid overtime (extra-duty) projects targeting robbery offenders based upon the latest crime intelligence data. (In other words, officers were now hunting the predator while on-duty officers continued their vigilance and response to 911 calls for service.) On project evenings, extra-duty officers along with on-duty specialized units attended joint robbery briefings conducted by the investigative division's robbery sergeant. The officers were briefed on the latest crime patterns, trends and specific suspects being sought by robbery detectives, and then assigned to specific target locations within the city that had the highest probability of being victimized to begin their hunt, focusing especially on multiple-occupant vehicles. If a robbery was dispatched within their area, officers were trained to not immediately respond to the scene, but rather to saturate the area's main escape routes to focus on locating the suspect(s), vehicle and other suspicious subjects. On-duty officers continued their primary response to robbery calls and were responsible for expeditiously obtaining and broadcasting additional suspect and vehicle information. To aid in offender identification, officers were provided with newly created standardized suspect description forms in English and Spanish designed to eliminate confusion in obtaining accurate descriptions of suspects, vehicles and weapons (See Appendix E). A robbery checklist was also provided to all field supervisors to ensure that robbery protocols were properly documented (See Appendix F).

To aid in post-robbery offender apprehensions, RPD has developed excellent working relationships with the City-County Bureau of Identification (CCBI) and the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) crime labs to ensure that all forensic opportunities for suspect identification have been thoroughly exhausted prior to closing a case. Upon any suspect identification in a robbery investigation, RPD is immediately notified of the findings by the identifying agency in order to further advance our criminal investigation. Since April 2008, CCBI has identified 137 potential robbery suspects through latent fingerprint identifications. Also,

RPD recently revitalized its stagnant Crime Stoppers Program; a retired RPD captain coordinates advertising and fundraising through the Greater Raleigh Merchants Association, our local Crime Stoppers sponsor.

Early in the scanning phase of the project, team members expressed concern over the high recidivism rate involving our identified robbery offenders and their noted progression of criminal activity. Since the RSI project began, collaborative efforts between RPD, the Wake County District Attorney's Office and the U.S. Attorney's Office have taken place, and both prosecutorial agencies have enacted measures prioritizing robbery offender prosecutions. In support of their efforts, RPD assigned two sworn officers to the District Attorney's Office, with one of the positions dedicated for the sole purpose of assisting in prosecution of robbery and gang offenders. RPD has also developed close ties with the ATF and FBI, and RPD officers in liaison positions with these agencies are actively pursuing violent criminal offenders, many of whom are robbery suspects.

# Assessment 

Raleigh's Robbery Suppression Initiative was gradually implemented throughout the spring of 2008 and into the summer as strategies were developed and refined. By year's end, Raleigh had experienced 267 reported commercial robberies, with CS robberies accounting for 33 percent (88) of these robberies. Although this represents a 44.3 percent increase over the 61 CS robberies reported in 2007, the strategies launched by the Robbery Suppression Initiative significantly decreased the 222.2 percentage increase observed during the first quarter of 2008. As the year progressed, the numbers continued to show a reduction in the percentile increase of robberies at convenience stores.

| QUARTER | 2007 | 2008 | \% CHANGE |
| :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: |
| First | 9 | 29 | $222.2 \%$ |
| Second | 9 | 17 | $88.9 \%$ |
| Third | 12 | 12 | $0.0 \%$ |
| Fourth | 31 | 30 | $-3.2 \%$ |
| TOTAL | 61 | 88 | $44.3 \%$ |

Throughout the RSI project, a strong emphasis was placed on the importance of officers conducting security checks and visiting CS locations within their district. We noted that the number of security checks increased dramatically upon the introduction of this response as the chart below indicates.

Security Checks
Green line is 24 month average from Nov05 to Oct07 (1648)
Red line is 6 month average from Nov07 to Apr08 (1833)
Pink line is 12 month average from May08 to Apr09 (5218)
![img-2.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-20/img-2.jpeg)

This effort strengthened RPD's ability to develop solid working relationships with CS establishments. One local CS chain currently incorporates our RSI training into their semiannual employee training classes, leading to a safer environment for customers and employees.

This response, applied simultaneously with the placing of out-of-service police vehicles at CS locations, created a police omnipresence which we believe has deterred robbery offenders.

One CS robbery suspect was quoted as saying, "I don't go near Capital Boulevard; they have

too many cops up there." Capital Boulevard is a main thoroughfare that is highly concentrated with convenience stores, which makes it an ideal corridor for implementation of this response. In order to prevent the perception that the police vehicles were merely decoys, they were frequently moved throughout the evening and never left overnight.

Although RPD has been unable to gain total compliance from all of the stores in Raleigh, efforts continue to positively affect the business practices of the majority of stores. Officers regularly work with store personnel in an effort to gain voluntary compliance and their participation in this initiative. Team members have assisted in creating store policies and signage, and have also obtained funds to purchase door height markers. Some stores even changed their cash management policies as a result of information provided to them through RSI. Crime prevention officers have now been assigned to specific convenience stores in order to build a lasting relationship with them. Due to their efforts, RPD has been able to obtain a 61 percent compliance rate (114 stores) out of the 186 identified convenience stores in Raleigh.

Internally, RPD addressed officer performance issues through the well-received departmentally mandated in-service RSI training. Real-time robbery patterns and trends were incorporated into the instruction, which made it relevant to Raleigh. The training inspired officers to "look beyond the tag" and initiate "out-of-car experiences." Officers realized the importance of effective engagement; however, they felt frustrated because of their inability to implement these training suggestions due to high call volume and a lack of undirected time. This issue was addressed through paid overtime initiatives, which increased proactive patrols of areas identified as being at high risk for CS robberies based upon timely analysis of current crime data. Officers working the RSI extra-duty project were allowed to focus on locating and identifying potential robbery offenders, as well as preventing other criminal offenses and ensuring public safety.

Vehicle Stops
Green line is 24 month average from Nov05 to Oct07 (5985)
Red line is 6 month average from Nov07 to Apr08 (5195)
Pink line is 12 month average from May08 to Apr09 (5915)
![img-3.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-20/img-3.jpeg)

The chart above illustrates that during the six-month period of our CS robbery trend, officerinitiated vehicle stops were noticeably lower than that of the previous two years. Upon completion of the in-service RSI training, officer-initiated traffic stops increased to prior levels. The revitalization of our Crime Stoppers program, when combined with officer utilization of the suspect description form, assisted detectives in receiving accurate and consistent information pertaining to suspects, vehicles and weaponry. The robbery scene checklist also ensured that protocols were adhered to and documented accordingly. The implementation of these strategies aided detectives in pattern identification and case clearance, and also built better working relationships between the patrol and investigative divisions. It is also important to note that the timely identification and arrest of CS robbers will reduce the number of CS robberies in that

these offenders typically remain loyal to their chosen area of expertise while displaying increasing levels of violence. This was very apparent to us during the holiday CS robbery spike observed between November and December 2008. Three separate CS robbery crews were operating in Raleigh during that time, and account for the observed spike in these offenses as indicated in the chart below.

# CONVENIENCE STORE ROBBERIES NOV07 TO APR09 

Red line is 6 month average from Nov07 to Apr08 (10.5)
Pink line is 12 month average from May08 to Apr09 (5)
![img-4.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-20/img-4.jpeg)

In response to this holiday CS robbery spike, robbery suppression and patrol officers immediately responded to the threat through proactive measures. The number of security checks and vehicle stops increased dramatically, as illustrated in the two previous charts for that time period; a real tribute to RSI in-service training. Since July 17, 2008, the RSI overtime project has been worked 101 times, resulting in the following statistics:

- 4,168 field encounters
- 251 Field Interview Reports with emphasis on quality over quantity
- 116 Gang Contact Forms

- 204 physical arrests
- 362 citations issued
- 189 warrants served
- 43 firearms seized
- 24 leads developed on robbery cases

While RPD has typically had a high clearance rate on robbery cases, analysis showed that clearances in the short-term were declining for robberies of convenience stores during the first quarter of 2007, with open cases climbing from 10 percent to 63 percent. After RSI efforts, the percentage of open cases dropped from 63 percent to 35 percent. The declining clearance rate in 2007 appeared to be related to a decline in quick clearances - that is, the proportion of cases cleared by officers on or near the scene. In order to validate our assumption, we conducted an internal review of all of the robbery cases cleared by arrest during 2008 in order to identify the determining factor which led to the suspect's identification or arrest. Overwhelmingly, initial officer response to the crime scene and officers circulating in the area immediately after a robbery resulted in the highest percentage of case clearances as compared to other factors that contributed to the subsequent identification and arrest of the offender.

Analysis of data obtained through the 2008 Robbery Offender Questionnaire and the 2007 Robbery Arrest and Court Disposition reports provided insight into the face of today's robbery offenders in Raleigh by building a local offender profile. The information gleaned from these reports was shared with local and federal prosecutors and used to enact measures to prioritize robbery offender prosecutions. In partnership with RPD, the U.S. Attorney's Office has prosecuted 137 defendants since February 2006. These individuals, many of whom are gang members, have been indicted on serious weapons, narcotics and robbery offenses. The successful prosecution of these offenders has earned them an average sentence of 125 months in prison. (See Appendix G)

As an unexpected benefit of the initiative, a reduction in the number of commercial burglaries was noted. It seems that responses developed to target robbery offenders also had a deterring effect on individuals contemplating committing commercial burglaries.

| Comm. Burglaries | Jan | Feb | Mar |
| :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: |
| 2008 | 99 | 70 | 84 |
| 2009 | 53 | 35 | 63 |
| \% / Month | $-46.46 \%$ | $-50.00 \%$ | $-25.00 \%$ |
| \% / Qtr |  | $-40.32 \%$ |  |

The success of RPD's RSI is based upon a holistic approach that continually addresses
Raleigh's CS robberies. By partnering with stakeholders and implementing our POP strategies, we have been able to significantly reduce Raleigh's CS robberies. First quarter 2009 statistics indicate that CS robberies account for six of the 24 commercial robberies committed in Raleigh. The six CS robberies represent 3.4 percent of the 177 robberies committed during this quarter, a significant decrease from the 10.8 percent committed during the first quarter of 2008 and below the 4.1 percent of CS robberies committed nationally in 2007. As a result of RPD's efforts, the number of CS robberies has been reduced to an average of five incidents per month, as compared to the previous six-month trend of 10.5 incidents per month, as illustrated in the chart below.

# CONVENIENCE STORE ROBBERIES 

Green line is 24 month average from Nov05 to Oct07 (3)
Red line is 6 month average from Nov07 to Apr08 (10.5)
Pink line is 12 month average from May08 to Apr09 (5)
![img-5.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-20/img-5.jpeg)

Agency Information
Raleigh Police Department
110 South McDowell Street
Post Box Office 590
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Phone: 919-996-3555
Project Contact
Lieutenant Andy Nichol
Investigative Division
110 South McDowell Street
Post Box Office 590
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Phone: 919-996-1004
Fax: 919-996-7186
Email: Andy.Nichol@ci.raleigh.nc.us
Key Team Members
Lieutenant Andy Nichol
Crime Analyst Carolyn White
Sergeant Kevin Carswell
Sergeant Jonas Cherry
Sergeant Anthony McLeod
Master Officer Barbie Upchurch
Master Officer Lisa Weber-Brglez

# Raleigh Police Department Crime Analysis Report 

## 2008 ROBBERY OFFENDER QUESTIONNAIRE

During the last five months of 2008, members of the Robbery Unit asked a series of questions to fifty men and women placed under arrest for robbery in Raleigh. Most of the suspects were cooperative ( $68 \%$ ) in answering the questions while detectives considered $20 \%$ of them to be evasive during the interview. Twelve percent of the suspects refused to participate in the survey. The following statistics are based on the answers provided by the fifty suspects. All persons interviewed were over the age of sixteen.

| DEMEANOR | COUNT | PERCENTAGE |
| :--: | :--: | :--: |
| Cooperative | 34 | $68 \%$ |
| Evasive | 10 | $20 \%$ |
| Refused | 6 | $12 \%$ |
| TOTAL | 50 | $100 \%$ |

The majority of the suspects arrested for robbery were black males who made up $88 \%$ of the total. Two black females were also arrested for robbery. Ninety-two percent of those arrested during this time were black. Two Hispanic males were also arrested (4\%). One white male and one white female were charged with robbery making up $4 \%$ of the total also.

| RACE | MALE | MALE  \% | FEMALE | FEMALE  \% | TOTAL ARRESTED | GRAND TOTAL\% |
| :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: |
| Black | 44 | 88\% | 2 | 4\% | 46 | 92\% |
| Hispanic | 2 | 4\% | 0 | 0\% | 2 | 4\% |
| White | 1 | 2\% | 1 | 2\% | 2 | 4\% |
| TOTAL | 47 | 94\% | 3 | 6\% | 50 | 100\% |

The age of the people arrested ranged between 16 and 46 . Nineteen of the fifty people were teenagers which made up $38 \%$ of the total. Nineteen-year-olds made up the greatest percentage of those arrested at $18 \%$. Over half of the suspects fell between the ages of 18 and 21 (52\%). Overall $80 \%$ of those arrested during these five months fell between the ages of 16 and 25 . Ten people over the age of 25 were arrested for robbery and only one person for each age counted.

| AGE | COUNT | PERCENTAGE | SUSPECTS BETWEEN... |
| :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: |
| 16 | 3 | 6\% |  |
| 17 | 1 | 2\% | AGES 16 - 19 EQUALS |
| 18 | 6 | 12\% | $38 \%$ |
| 19 | 9 | 18\% |  |
| 20 | 6 | 12\% | AGES 16 - 21 EQUALS |
| 21 | 5 | 10\% | $52 \%$ |
| 22 | 2 | 4\% |  |
| 23 | 2 | 4\% | AGES 16 - 25 EQUALS |
| 24 | 4 | 8\% | $80 \%$ |
| 25 | 2 | 4\% |  |
| 26 | 1 | 2\% |  |
| 29 | 1 | 2\% |  |
| 31 | 1 | 2\% |  |
| 33 | 1 | 2\% |  |
| 37 | 1 | 2\% |  |
| 38 | 1 | 2\% |  |
| 39 | 1 | 2\% |  |
| 41 | 1 | 2\% |  |
| 44 | 1 | 2\% |  |
| 46 | 1 | 2\% |  |
| TOTAL | 50 | 100\% |  |

The majority of these fifty suspects lived in Raleigh at the time of their arrest ( $80 \%$ ). Eight of the remaining suspects lived in nearby towns. Two suspects traveled from Castalia and Greensboro respectively to commit a robbery in Raleigh. It should be noted that none of the suspects lived in Durham.

| CITY | COUNT | PERCENTAGE |
| :-- | :--: | :--: |
| Castalia | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Greensboro | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Henderson | 4 | $8 \%$ |
| Louisburg | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Raleigh | 40 | $80 \%$ |
| Wake Forest | 2 | $4 \%$ |
| Wendell | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| TOTAL | 50 | $100 \%$ |

Thirty of the suspects ( $60 \%$ ) were born in North Carolina. Four of them refused to answer the question. One suspect was born in Mexico while another was born in California. The remainder of the suspects were born in East Coast states. Eighteen percent of the suspects came from New Jersey and New York.

| BIRTH STATE | COUNT | PERCENTAGE |
| :-- | :--: | :--: |
| California | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Connecticut | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Maryland | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Mexico | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| New Jersey | 5 | $10 \%$ |
| New York | 4 | $8 \%$ |
| North Carolina | 30 | $60 \%$ |
| Refused/Unk | 4 | $8 \%$ |
| South Carolina | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Virginia | 2 | $4 \%$ |
| TOTAL | 50 | $100 \%$ |

Of the thirty suspects born in North Carolina, eighteen ( $60 \%$ ) of them were raised in Wake County. Most of the others were raised in adjacent counties. Two suspects were raised in Durham County though they did not live there at the time of their arrest in Raleigh. Two of the NC-born suspects ( $6 \%$ ) refused to answer the question.

| COUNTY | COUNT | PERCENTAGE |
| :-- | :--: | :--: |
| Durham | 2 | $7 \%$ |
| Franklin | 1 | $3 \%$ |
| Guilford | 1 | $3 \%$ |
| Mecklenburg | 1 | $3 \%$ |
| Orange | 1 | $3 \%$ |
| Pitt | 1 | $3 \%$ |
| Refused | 2 | $7 \%$ |
| Vance | 3 | $10 \%$ |
| Wake | 18 | $60 \%$ |
| TOTAL | 30 | $100 \%$ |

The robbery type was divided into three categories: Commercial, From Person and Home Invasion. The majority of the arrests fell into the From Person category (54\%). Commercial was next with $42 \%$, followed by Home Invasion with $4 \%$.

| TYPE | COUNT | PERCENTAGE |
| :-- | :--: | :--: |
| Commercial | 21 | $42 \%$ |
| From Person | 27 | $54 \%$ |
| Home Invasion | 2 | $4 \%$ |
| TOTAL | 50 | $100 \%$ |

The majority of the suspects (64\%) reported that they had not been arrested on prior robbery charges. Eighteen percent of the suspects admit that they had been charged with robbery in the past. Another eighteen percent refused to answer the question.

| PRIOR ROBBERY CHARGES | COUNT | PERCENTAGE |
| :-- | :--: | :--: |
| No | 32 | $64 \%$ |
| Yes | 9 | $18 \%$ |
| Refused | 9 | $18 \%$ |
| TOTAL | 50 | $100 \%$ |

Eighteen of the fifty suspects ( $36 \%$ ) received their high school diploma. Seven of these continued with college though none had graduated at the time of their arrest. Five earned their GED. One actually said he earned his GED while in jail. Seven refused to answer the question.

| EDUCATION | COUNT | PERCENTAGE |
| :-- | :--: | :--: |
| 8th Grade | 2 | $4 \%$ |
| 9th Grade | 2 | $4 \%$ |
| 10th Grade | 5 | $10 \%$ |
| 11th Grade | 11 | $22 \%$ |
| High School Graduate | 11 | $22 \%$ |
| GED Obtained | 5 | $10 \%$ |
| Less than 2 years of college | 4 | $8 \%$ |
| 2-4 years of college | 3 | $6 \%$ |
| Refused | 7 | $14 \%$ |
| TOTAL | 50 | $100 \%$ |

The chart below lists the age of the suspect as well as their highest education level completed. While many of the suspects were still in school at the time of their arrest, many others dropped out before graduating high school.

EDUCATION LEVEL

| AGE | 8th | 9th | 10th | 11th | HS  GRAD | GED | GED  IN  JAIL | 1-2 YRS  COLLEGE | 2-4 YRS  COLLEGE | GRAND  TOTAL |
| :-- | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: |
| 16 | 1 | 1 | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  | 3 |
| 17 | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| 18 |  |  | 1 | 3 | 2 |  |  |  |  | 6 |
| 19 |  |  | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 |  | 1 |  | 8 |
| 20 |  |  | 1 |  |  | 1 |  | 2 |  | 4 |
| 21 |  |  |  | 2 | 1 | 1 |  | 1 |  | 5 |
| 22 |  |  |  | 1 | 1 |  |  |  |  | 2 |
| 23 |  |  |  | 1 | 1 |  |  |  |  | 2 |
| 24 |  |  |  | 1 |  | 1 |  |  |  | 2 |
| 25 |  | 1 |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  | 2 |
| 29 |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| 31 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 1 |
| 33 |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| 37 |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  | 1 |
| 38 |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| 41 |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| 44 |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| 46 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 1 |
| TOTAL | 2 | 2 | 5 | 11 | 12 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 43 |

Suspects were also asked questions about their childhood and family life. Over half of the participants ( $56 \%$ ) reported that their parents never married. Seven of them ( $14 \%$ ) reported that their parents were separated or divorced. Six of the suspects ( $12 \%$ ) reported that their parents were still married. Nine of the suspects refused to answer this question.

| MARITAL STATUS OF PARENTS | COUNT | PERCENTAGE |
| :-- | :--: | :--: |
| Divorced | 5 | $10 \%$ |
| Married | 6 | $12 \%$ |
| Never Married | 28 | $56 \%$ |
| Refused | 9 | $18 \%$ |
| Separated | 2 | $4 \%$ |
| TOTAL | 50 | $100 \%$ |

Nearly sixty percent of suspects reported that a parent was involved in their day-to-day activities. Seven of them ( $14 \%$ ) reported that they had no daily parental authority. Fourteen of the suspects refused to answer this question.

| DAY-TO-DAY PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT | COUNT | PERCENTAGE |
| :-- | :--: | :--: |
| No | 7 | $14 \%$ |
| Yes | 29 | $58 \%$ |
| Refused | 14 | $28 \%$ |
| TOTAL | 50 | $100 \%$ |

When asked who raised them, the suspects most often listed "Mom" as the answer (48\%). "Dad" was listed as the answer in only two of the cases. Seven suspects ( $14 \%$ ) reported they were raised by both parents. Grandparents raised the suspects in four of the cases ( $8 \%$ ). Nine of the suspects ( $18 \%$ ) refused to answer this question.

| RAISED BY | COUNT | PERCENTAGE |
| :-- | :--: | :--: |
| Aunt | 2 | $4 \%$ |
| Both parents | 7 | $14 \%$ |
| Dad | 2 | $4 \%$ |
| Grandparent | 4 | $8 \%$ |
| Mom | 24 | $48 \%$ |
| Mom and stepfather | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Mom and Grandfather | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Refused | 9 | $18 \%$ |
| TOTAL | 50 | $100 \%$ |

Suspects were also asked how old they were when their parents separated. Eight suspects answered this question. Six of them were considered children when their parents separated. Two of the suspects were adults when it occurred.

| AGE WHEN PARENTS SEPARATED | COUNT | PERCENTAGE |
| :-- | :--: | :--: |
| 1 | 2 | $25 \%$ |
| 4 | 2 | $25 \%$ |
| 6 | 1 | $13 \%$ |
| 10 | 1 | $13 \%$ |
| 19 | 1 | $13 \%$ |
| 22 | 1 | $13 \%$ |
| TOTAL | 8 | $100 \%$ |

Only one of the suspects was an only child. The others claimed to have one to twelve siblings. Ten suspects refused to answer this question while one said he did not know how many brothers and sisters he had.

| NO. OF SIBLINGS | COUNT | PERCENTAGE |
| :-- | :--: | :--: |
| 0 | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| 1 | 8 | $16 \%$ |
| 2 | 7 | $14 \%$ |
| 3 | 7 | $14 \%$ |
| 4 | 2 | $4 \%$ |
| 5 | 4 | $8 \%$ |
| 6 | 5 | $10 \%$ |
| 7 | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| 8 | 2 | $4 \%$ |
| 9 | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| 12 | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Refused | 10 | $20 \%$ |
| Unknown | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| TOTAL | 50 | $100 \%$ |

When asked what age they faced life on their own, ten of the suspects reported rather young ages between twelve and sixteen. Eleven of the suspects ( $22 \%$ ) reported they were on their own at the age of eighteen. Many of the suspects ( $24 \%$ ) reported that they were not yet on their own. Twelve of the suspects ( $22 \%$ ) refused to answer this question.

| AGE ON YOUR OWN | COUNT | PERCENTAGE |
| :-- | :--: | :--: |
| 12 | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| 13 | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| 15 | 2 | $4 \%$ |
| 16 | 3 | $6 \%$ |
| 17 | 3 | $6 \%$ |
| 18 | 11 | $22 \%$ |
| 19 | 3 | $6 \%$ |
| 21 | 2 | $4 \%$ |
| 22 | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Not on own yet | 12 | $24 \%$ |
| REFUSED | 11 | $22 \%$ |
| TOTAL | 50 | $100 \%$ |

An equal number of suspects (38\%) reported they were raised in lower or middle class homes. Only two individuals reported growing up in a higher class home. Ten suspects refused to answer this question.

| INCOME LEVEL GROWING UP | COUNT | PERCENTAGE |
| :-- | :--: | :--: |
| Lower | 19 | $38 \%$ |
| Middle | 19 | $38 \%$ |
| Higher | 2 | $4 \%$ |
| Refused/Unk | 10 | $20 \%$ |
| TOTAL | 50 | $100 \%$ |

Suspects were also asked their age when they committed their first crime and the age when they were first caught. Twelve refused to answer the question while three said they did not know. Of the 35 people who answered, the majority ( $74 \%$ ) says it was at the same age. Only nine people ( $26 \%$ ) reported an earlier age than when they were first caught.

The majority of the fifty suspects arrested for robbery during this time indicated that they were substance abusers (58\%). Seven suspects refused to answer this question. Fourteen suspects ( $28 \%$ ) said that they did not abuse alcohol or drugs. Alcohol and marijuana abuse was the most common among the group.

| SUBSTANCE ABUSE | COUNT | \%AGE |
| :-- | :--: | :--: |
| Alcohol | 3 | $6 \%$ |
| Alcohol, Marijuana | 9 | $18 \%$ |
| Alcohol, Marijuana, Cocaine | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Alcohol, Marijuana,  Cocaine, Crack | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Crack | 2 | $4 \%$ |
| Crack, Cocaine | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Marijuana | 11 | $22 \%$ |
| Marijuana, Crack | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| None | 14 | $28 \%$ |
| Refused | 7 | $14 \%$ |
| TOTAL | 50 | $100 \%$ |

*sorted alphabetically

| SUBSTANCE ABUSE | COUNT | \%AGE |
| :-- | :--: | :--: |
| None | 14 | $28 \%$ |
| Marijuana | 11 | $22 \%$ |
| Alcohol, Marijuana | 9 | $18 \%$ |
| Refused | 7 | $14 \%$ |
| Alcohol | 3 | $6 \%$ |
| Crack | 2 | $4 \%$ |
| Alcohol, Marijuana, Cocaine | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Alcohol, Marijuana, Cocaine, |  |  |
| Crack | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Crack, Cocaine | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Marijuana, Crack | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| TOTAL | 50 | $100 \%$ |

*sorted descending by percentage

As mentioned previously, the majority of the suspects indicated that they were substance abusers. However, there may have been some confusion as to whether they were substance users or abusers. All of the 29 suspects who admitted they were substance abusers answered the question regarding their frequency of use. Sixteen of the suspects answered that they used alcohol or drugs daily or multiple times daily. The other thirteen suspects responded that they used alcohol or drugs weekly or monthly.

| SUBSTANCE | DAILY | MULTIPLE  TIMES  DAILY | WEEKLY | WEEKENDS | ON  OCCASSION | MONTHLY | TOTAL |
| :-- | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: |
| ALCOHOL | 2 |  |  | 1 |  |  | 3 |
| ALCOHOL,MARIJUANA | 1 | 1 |  | 1 | 4 | 2 | 9 |
| ALCOHOL,MARIJUANA,COCAINE | 1 |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| ALCOHOL,MARIJUANA,CRACK,COCAINE |  | 1 |  |  |  |  | 1 |
| CRACK | 1 |  | 1 |  |  |  | 2 |
| CRACK,COCAINE |  |  | 1 |  |  |  | 1 |
| MARIJUANA | 4 | 5 | 1 |  | 1 |  | 11 |
| MARIJUANA,CRACK |  |  |  |  | 1 |  | 1 |
| TOTAL | 9 | 7 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 29 |

Nearly half of the suspects (44\%) reported that they were unemployed at the time of their arrest. Four claimed to be students while six refused to answer the question. The remaining suspects listed a variety of vocations.

| EMPLOYMENT | COUNT | PERCENTAGE |
| :-- | :--: | :--: |
| Brick Layer | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Cleaning | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Construction | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Cook/Food Industry | 6 | $12 \%$ |
| Driver | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Laborer | 2 | $4 \%$ |
| Maintenance | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Mechanical | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Medical/Healthcare | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Military | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Refused | 6 | $12 \%$ |
| Septic Tanks | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Stock Room | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Student | 4 | $8 \%$ |
| Unemployed | 22 | $44 \%$ |
| TOTAL | 50 | $100 \%$ |

Employment lengths ranged between two weeks to eleven years among the twelve suspects who held jobs. Again, half of the suspects were unemployed at the time of their arrest. Nine suspects refused to answer this question while six refused to answer the question on what type of job they had (question above). Three suspects named a vocation in the previous question but were unemployed at the time of arrest.

| EMPLOYMENT LENGTH | COUNT | PERCENTAGE |
| :-- | :--: | :--: |
| 2 Weeks | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| 1 Month | 2 | $4 \%$ |
| 2 Months | 2 | $3 \%$ |
| 3 Months | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| 4 Months | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| 7 Months | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| 1 Year | 2 | $4 \%$ |
| 2 Years | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| 11 Years | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Student | 4 | $8 \%$ |
| Refused | 9 | $18 \%$ |
| Unemployed | 25 | $50 \%$ |
| TOTAL | 50 | $100 \%$ |

Suspects were also asked a series of questions about the robberies they were charged with committing. Suspects often freely answered these questions but many of them refused to answer more questions in this section than any other part of the survey.

Suspects used a variety of weapons during their robberies with the majority of them used handguns ( $18 \%$ ). Two suspects used a rifle and one suspect used a shotgun in these robberies. In two cases, the accomplice had the firearm rather than the suspect the detective was interviewing for this survey. Six of the suspects ( $12 \%$ ) proclaimed their innocence at this time while eight of them ( $16 \%$ ) refused to answer the question.

| WEAPON USED | COUNT | PERCENTAGE |
| :-- | :--: | :--: |
| Accomplice had firearm | 2 | $4 \%$ |
| BB Gun | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Claimed innocent | 6 | $12 \%$ |
| Firearm Implied | 2 | $4 \%$ |
| Hammer | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Handgun | 9 | $18 \%$ |
| Hands | 6 | $12 \%$ |
| Intimidation | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Knife | 5 | $10 \%$ |
| None | 4 | $8 \%$ |
| Note in bank robbery | 2 | $4 \%$ |
| Refused/Unk | 8 | $16 \%$ |
| Rifle | 2 | $4 \%$ |
| Shotgun | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| TOTAL | 50 | $100 \%$ |

Only eight of the suspects answered the question of where they obtained their weapon. Four of the suspects say a friend gave them the weapon. These four suspects used handguns and a shotgun in their robberies. One suspect admitted to the "straw purchase" of a handgun. The other weapons involved a hammer and knives.

| HOW WAS WEAPON ACQUIRED? | COUNT | PERCENTAGE |
| :-- | :--: | :--: |
| Found it - knife | 1 | $13 \%$ |
| Friend - 3 handguns, 1 shotgun | 4 | $50 \%$ |
| Legitimate purchase - knife | 1 | $13 \%$ |
| Other - hammer | 1 | $13 \%$ |
| Straw Purchase - handgun | 1 | $13 \%$ |
| TOTAL | 8 | $100 \%$ |

Twelve of these suspects used a firearm in the commission of their robberies. When asked under what conditions they would be willing to fire their weapon, only five of the suspects answered the question. One reported he would fire if he received aggressive resistance from his victim. Another said he would fire at a fleeing victim. Three of the suspects said they would not fire their gun at a victim.

| FIRE WEAPON | COUNT | PERCENTAGE |
| :-- | :--: | :--: |
| Aggressive Resistance | 1 | $20 \%$ |
| Fleeing Victim | 1 | $20 \%$ |
| None | 3 | $60 \%$ |
| TOTAL | 5 | $100 \%$ |

Suspects chose their victims from a variety of criteria. Eight of the suspects (16\%) proclaimed their innocence while another seventeen (34\%) refused to answer the question. Eighteen percent of suspects say their victim choice was random while eight percent said their choice stemmed from opportunity. Only one suspect said he robbed a particular business because he was familiar with the store.

| CHOOSE VICTIM? | COUNT | PERCENTAGE |
| :-- | :--: | :--: |
| Accomplices Chose Victim | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Accomplice after the fact | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Claimed innocent | 8 | $16 \%$ |
| Domestic | 2 | $4 \%$ |
| Don't know | 2 | $4 \%$ |
| Familiar with store | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Observer only | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Opportunity | 4 | $8 \%$ |
| Other | 2 | $4 \%$ |
| Random | 9 | $18 \%$ |
| Refused/Unk | 17 | $34 \%$ |
| Type of clothes sold at location | 2 | $4 \%$ |
|  | TOTAL | $100 \%$ |

Suspects gave a variety of reasons of why they committed the robbery. Twenty-two percent of suspects claimed they were innocent of the charges. Another twenty percent refused to answer the question. Seven of the suspects ( $14 \%$ ) claimed they committed the robbery because they needed money for gas and bills. Four suspects say they committed a robbery to support their family. Only two admitted that they robbed to support their drug habit. Several interesting reasons were given such as one suspect claiming self-defense while another said he was simply "hungry and stupid". Four suspects were charged with robbery after stealing clothes from a retail store. When asked why they committed the robbery, one suspect said he wanted to sell the clothes for money while another said he wanted to wear the clothes to a local club called Black Tie.

| REASON FOR ROBBERY | COUNT | PERCENTAGE |
| :-- | :--: | :--: |
| Accomplice After the fact | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Claimed Innocent | 11 | $22 \%$ |
| Domestic | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Don't know | 4 | $8 \%$ |
| Hungry and stupid | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Needed money | 7 | $14 \%$ |
| Observer only | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Opportunity | 3 | $6 \%$ |
| Peer pressure | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Personal | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Refused | 10 | $20 \%$ |
| Self-defense | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Sell clothes for money | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Support drug habit | 2 | $4 \%$ |
| Support family | 4 | $8 \%$ |
| Wanted clothes for club | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| TOTAL | 50 | $100 \%$ |

Suspects were also asked where they went after the robbery. Again, sixteen percent claimed they were innocent of charges and twenty-four percent refused to answer the question. The most popular destination after a robbery was home. Twelve of the suspects (24\%) say they went home after the robbery while another 8 were trying to go home but were caught by police before they arrived.

| AFTER THE ROBBERY | COUNT | PERCENTAGE |
| :-- | :--: | :--: |
| Caught while fleeing | 3 | $6 \%$ |
| Claimed innocent | 8 | $16 \%$ |
| Friend's home | 4 | $8 \%$ |
| Gas station | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Home | 12 | $24 \%$ |
| Hotel | 2 | $4 \%$ |
| In the woods | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Mall - Crabtree | 2 | $4 \%$ |
| Parking lot | 1 | $2 \%$ |
| Refused | 12 | $24 \%$ |
| Trying to go home | 4 | $8 \%$ |
| TOTAL | 50 | $100 \%$ |

# Raleigh Police Department Crime Analysis Report 

## 2007 ROBBERY ARRESTS AND COURT DISPOSITIONS

During the last half of 2007, 156 people were charged with robbery by the Raleigh Police Department. The criminal history of each of these people was reviewed for court dispositions on these charges as well as previous felony and misdemeanor charges. The criminal histories indicated that these 156 people were arrested on 278 counts of robbery in Raleigh during their criminal careers. The majority of those arrested were males ( $96 \%$ ) with black males making up 74 percent of the total arrests. Only seven females were charged with robbery during this sixmonth time frame accounting for 4 percent of the total arrests. Seventeen Hispanic males were arrested which accounts for 11 percent of the total. Three white females and sixteen white males were also arrested during this time which made up 12 percent of the total.

|  | FEMALE | MALE | TOTAL |
| :-- | :--: | :--: | :--: |
| Black | 4 | 116 | $\mathbf{1 2 0}$ |
| Hispanic | 0 | 17 | $\mathbf{1 7}$ |
| White | 3 | 16 | $\mathbf{1 9}$ |
| TOTAL | $\mathbf{7}$ | $\mathbf{1 4 9}$ | $\mathbf{1 5 6}$ |

Sixty of the 156 people arrested were between the ages of 16 and 20. They made up 38 percent of the total number of arrests. This 38 percent has been consistent for robbery arrests over the past five years (see chart below). Those between the ages of 21 and 25 made up the second largest group with 22 percent. When these two age groups are combined, arrestees between the ages of 16 and 25 made up 60 percent of the total.

| AGE | COUNT | PERCENTAGE |
| :--: | :--: | :--: |
| Age 16 - 20 | 60 | $38 \%$ |
| Age 21 - 25 | 34 | $22 \%$ |
| Age 26 - 30 | 24 | $15 \%$ |
| Age 31 - 35 | 14 | $9 \%$ |
| Age 36 - 40 | 6 | $4 \%$ |
| Age 41 - 45 | 9 | $6 \%$ |
| Age 46 - 50 | 8 | $5 \%$ |
| Age 51 | 1 | $1 \%$ |


|  | PERCENT OF TOTAL |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: |
|  | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 |
| 15 and Under | 5 | 14 | 14 | 21 | 13 | $2 \%$ | $4 \%$ | $4 \%$ | $6 \%$ | $3 \%$ |
| 16 - 20 | 102 | 156 | 152 | 136 | 181 | $35 \%$ | $39 \%$ | $38 \%$ | $38 \%$ | $40 \%$ |
| 21 - 25 | 74 | 74 | 87 | 73 | 120 | $25 \%$ | $19 \%$ | $22 \%$ | $21 \%$ | $26 \%$ |
| 26 - 30 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 52 | 56 | $14 \%$ | $11 \%$ | $11 \%$ | $15 \%$ | $12 \%$ |
| 31 - 35 | 24 | 44 | 36 | 26 | 28 | $8 \%$ | $11 \%$ | $9 \%$ | $7 \%$ | $6 \%$ |
| 36 - 40 | 22 | 36 | 22 | 16 | 27 | $8 \%$ | $9 \%$ | $6 \%$ | $5 \%$ | $6 \%$ |
| 41 - 45 | 13 | 20 | 21 | 18 | 14 | $4 \%$ | $5 \%$ | $5 \%$ | $5 \%$ | $3 \%$ |
| 46 - 50 | 6 | 7 | 17 | 12 | 14 | $2 \%$ | $2 \%$ | $4 \%$ | $3 \%$ | $3 \%$ |
| 51 - 55 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | $2 \%$ | $0 \%$ | $1 \%$ | $0 \%$ | $0 \%$ |
| 56 - 60 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | $0 \%$ | $0 \%$ | $0 \%$ | $0 \%$ | $1 \%$ |
| 61 and up | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | $0 \%$ | $0 \%$ | $0 \%$ | $0 \%$ | $0 \%$ |
| TOTALS | 293 | 397 | 397 | 355 | 458 | 100\% | 100\% | 100\% | 100\% | 100\% |

These 156 people had 278 robbery charges in Raleigh listed on their criminal histories. For this report, the dispositions were tallied in three categories: As Charged, Pled to Lesser Offense and Dismissed. Of the 278 charges, 234 charges have a known final court disposition.

- $27 \%$ of the charges were disposed of As Charged ( 64 charges)
- $37 \%$ of the charges were pled down to a lesser offense ( 87 charges)
- Two-thirds pled to a lesser felony charge
- One-third pled to a misdemeanor charge.
- $36 \%$ of the robbery charges were dismissed ( 83 charges)
- 44 charges have an unknown disposition at this time.

Eighty-three of the 234 robbery charges (36\%) were dismissed by the court system. Fifty-eight of these dismissed charges were filed during the last six months of 2007. These fifty-eight robbery charges and dismissals were reviewed in detail. It was found that the 58 dismissals during these six months were divided into two categories:

- 26 cases dismissed
- 32 cases dismissed with new charges filed.

Twenty-six of these charges from the last six months 2007 were dismissed due to the reasons listed in the table below. Note that four suspects were charged by the Federal Government.

| REASON FOR DISMISSAL | CHARGES |
| :-- | :--: |
| No Victim / Uncooperative / Recanted | 16 |
| Co-defendant confessed and found guilty | 2 |
| Insufficient Evidence | 4 |
| Feds took the case | 4 |
| Pending case / re-indicted | 1 |
|  | TOTAL |

Thirty-two of the charges were dismissed with the defendant entering into a plea agreement under new charges. The majority of these suspects received an active sentence based upon a felony conviction.

| REASON FOR DISMISSAL | CHARGES |
| :-- | :--: |
| Plea with an active sentence | 25 |
| Plea with an inactive sentence | 7 |
|  | TOTAL |

The information gleaned during this review of the 2007 cases created changes in the initial review of dispositions resulting in the Dismissed category decreasing from 36 percent to 22 percent. The dispositions are now tallied into four categories rather than three.

| RPD DISPOSITIONS | CHARGES | PERCENTAGE |
| :-- | :--: | :--: |
| As Charged | 64 | $27 \%$ |
| Pled to Lesser Offense | 87 | $37 \%$ |
| Dismissed - New Charges (2007 charges only) | 32 | $14 \%$ |
| Dismissed (robbery charges prior to July 2007) | 51 | $22 \%$ |
|  |  | $100 \%$ |

As mentioned above, 37 percent of the suspects charged with robbery pled to a lesser offense. Two-thirds of these defendants pled to a lesser felony. Those felony charges and the percentages they represent of the total are listed below.

| FELONY CHARGES | PERCENTAGE OF LESSER FELONY PLEAS |
| :-- | :--: |
| Larceny from Person | $36 \%$ |
| Common Law Robbery | $32 \%$ |
| Attempted Common Law Robbery | $10 \%$ |
| Felony Larceny | $4 \%$ |
| Conspiracy to Rob with Dangerous Weapon | $4 \%$ |
| Accessory after the Fact | $4 \%$ |
| Robbery with Dangerous Weapon | $2 \%$ |
| Attempted Larceny from Person | $2 \%$ |
| Larceny from Motor Vehicle | $2 \%$ |
| Attempted Larceny from Motor Vehicle | $2 \%$ |
| Assault Inflicting Serious Injury | $2 \%$ |
| TOTAL | $100 \%$ |

One-third of the suspects pled their case down to a misdemeanor. Those charges and percentages are listed below.

| MISDEMEANOR CHARGES | PERCENTAGE OF MISDEMEANOR PLEAS |
| :-- | :--: |
| Misdemeanor Larceny | $58 \%$ |
| Simple Assault | $18 \%$ |
| Assault with Deadly Weapon | $4 \%$ |
| Attempted Possession Firearm | $4 \%$ |
| Unauthorized Use of Motor Vehicle | $4 \%$ |
| Carrying Concealed Weapon | $4 \%$ |
| Aid and Abet Assault by Pointing | $4 \%$ |
| Attempted Larceny | $4 \%$ |
| TOTAL | $100 \%$ |

Seventy-five percent of those arrested are convicted felons. These 117 people faced 232 robbery charges in Raleigh. At this time only 204 of these charges have a known final disposition.

| CONVICTED FELON | CHARGES | PERCENTAGE |
| :-- | :--: | :--: |
| As Charged | 64 | $32 \%$ |
| Pled to Lesser Offense | 76 | $37 \%$ |
| Dismissed - New Charges | 27 | $13 \%$ |
| Dismissed | 37 | $18 \%$ |
| TOTAL | 204 | $100 \%$ |

Twenty-four percent of the 156 people charged with robbery are validated gang members. These 37 people faced 76 robbery charges. Sixty-two of these charges have reached a known court disposition

| GANG MEMBER | CHARGES | PERCENTAGE |
| :-- | :--: | :--: |
| As Charged | 21 | $34 \%$ |
| Pled to Lesser Offense | 23 | $37 \%$ |
| Dismissed - New Charges | 3 | $5 \%$ |
| Dismissed | 15 | $24 \%$ |
| TOTAL | 62 | $100 \%$ |

The chart at right lists the ages of the 37 validated gang members and distinguishes whether or not they are convicted felons. As indicated, 27 validated gang members ( $73 \%$ ) are convicted felons. Fourteen of these 27 are teenagers.

| AGE OF  VALIDATED GANG  MEMBER | NOT A  CONVICTED  FELON | CONVICTED  FELON | TOTAL |
| :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: |
| 16 | 2 | 5 | 7 |
| 17 | 3 | 2 | 5 |
| 18 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| 19 | 2 | 5 | 7 |
| 20 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
| 21 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| 22 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| 23 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 24 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 28 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 30 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| TOTAL | 10 | 27 | 37 |

Upon reviewing the criminal histories of these 156 people, it was determined that 44 of them (28\%) were arrested on robbery charges as their first ever offense. These 44 people have been arrested on 76 robbery charges in Raleigh. Sixty-four of these cases have a known court disposition.

| FIRST OFFENSE | CHARGES | PERCENTAGE |
| :-- | :--: | :--: |
| As Charged | 17 | $27 \%$ |
| Pled to Lesser Offense | 20 | $31 \%$ |
| Dismissed - New Charges | 14 | $22 \%$ |
| Dismissed | 13 | $20 \%$ |
| TOTAL | 64 | $100 \%$ |

Of these 44 people whose first arrest is for robbery, thirteen of them (30\%) are validated gang members.

These 156 people have been arrested on 946 prior felony charges throughout their lifetime. The dispositions of those court cases were tallied as well. A disposition was reached in 888 of these charges.

| PRIOR FELONIES | COUNT | PERCENTAGE |
| :-- | :--: | :--: |
| As Charged | 361 | $41 \%$ |
| Pled to Lesser Offense | 179 | $20 \%$ |
| Dismissed | 348 | $39 \%$ |
| TOTAL | 888 | $100 \%$ |

Twenty-nine (19\%) of these arrestees had no prior misdemeanor arrests before they were arrested for robbery in Raleigh. See chart below for other counts of misdemeanor arrests.

| PRIOR MISDEMEANORS | COUNT | PERCENTAGE |
| :-- | :--: | :--: |
| Zero | 29 | $19 \%$ |
| One | 14 | $9 \%$ |
| Two | 23 | $15 \%$ |
| Three | 18 | $12 \%$ |
| Four | 12 | $8 \%$ |
| Five | 13 | $8 \%$ |
| Six | 5 | $3 \%$ |
| Seven | 10 | $6 \%$ |
| Eight | 4 | $3 \%$ |
| Nine | 3 | $2 \%$ |
| Ten | 3 | $2 \%$ |
| Eleven | 3 | $2 \%$ |
| Twelve | 3 | $2 \%$ |
| Thirteen | 4 | $3 \%$ |
| Fourteen | 2 | $1 \%$ |
| Fifteen | 3 | $2 \%$ |
| Sixteen | 2 | $1 \%$ |
| Eighteen | 1 | $1 \%$ |
| Twenty-two | 1 | $1 \%$ |
| Thirty | 1 | $1 \%$ |
| Thirty-eight | 1 | $1 \%$ |
| Thirty-nine | 1 | $1 \%$ |
|  |  |  |

Eighty-three percent of these 156 people (or 130 of them) did not have previous robbery charges against them on their criminal history. Eight people have one previous charge and seven people had three previous charges. One person had seven prior robbery charges.

| PRIOR ROB CHARGES | COUNT | PERCENTAGE |
| :-- | :--: | :--: |
| Zero | 130 | $83 \%$ |
| One | 8 | $5 \%$ |
| Two | 7 | $4 \%$ |
| Three | 4 | $3 \%$ |
| Four | 1 | $1 \%$ |
| Five | 3 | $2 \%$ |
| Six | 2 | $1 \%$ |
| Seven | 1 | $1 \%$ |

As mentioned earlier, sixty of the 156 people arrested are between the ages of 16 and 20. These sixty people were arrested on 104 robbery charges in Raleigh with 81 cases having a disposition at this time. Of these 60 young people, 27 ( $45 \%$ ) of them are validated gang members. Twenty-seven ( $43 \%$ ) of them had robbery listed as the first charge on their criminal history.

| AGES 16 - 20 | CHARGES | PERCENTAGE |
| :-- | :--: | :--: |
| As Charged | 25 | $31 \%$ |
| Pled to Lesser Offense | 38 | $47 \%$ |
| Dismissed - New Charges | 9 | $11 \%$ |
| Dismissed | 9 | $11 \%$ |
| TOTAL | 81 | $100 \%$ |

The chart below combines the known court dispositions of several categories discussed previously. The highest percentage in each category has been highlighted.

| DISPOSTION | RPD ROB | CONV  FELON | GANG  MEMBER | FIRST  OFF ROB | PRIOR  FELONIES | AGE 16 - 20 |
| :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: |
| As Charged | 27\% | 32\% | 34\% | 27\% | 41\% | 31\% |
| Pled to Lesser Offense | 37\% | 37\% | 37\% | 31\% | 20\% | 47\% |
| Dismissed - New Charges | 14\% | 13\% | 5\% | 22\% | NA | 11\% |
| Dismissed | 22\% | 18\% | 24\% | 20\% | 39\% | 11\% |
| TOTAL | 100\% | 100\% | 100\% | 100\% | 100\% | 100\% |

# **KEYS TO ROBBERY PREVENTION**

### **Strong store policy**

- Know it
- Enforce it
- Educate employees

### **Awareness**

- Reduction of opportunity equals reduction of vulnerability

### **Suggested tools**

- A sign to place in the window showing the business is closed due to an emergency
- A notification sign that the premises has surveillance and/or alarms
- A "Suspect Description Form"
- A height strip

![img-6.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-20/img-6.jpeg)

Contact the Raleigh Police Department for Program Details 919-890-3335

The Raleigh Police Department offers a survey of your business free of charge to help you make your business a safer place to work. If you would like to have a police officer come out and talk to you just call the number listed on this brochure.

**Raleigh Police Department Providing Community Service Through Professional Excellence.**

![img-7.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-20/img-7.jpeg)

**Raleigh Police Department**
110 S. McDowell St
Raleigh, NC 27602
Phone: 919-890-3335
Fax: 919-831-6138

**Raleigh Crime Stoppers**
919-834-HELP (4357)
www.raleighnc.gov/police

# **Robbery Prevention For Businesses**

![img-8.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-20/img-8.jpeg)

**Raleigh Police Department**
110 S. McDowell St
Raleigh, NC 27602
Phone: 919-890-3335
Fax: 919-831-6138
www.raleighnc.gov/police

## Be Proactive

- Install a height indicator strip on the door frame
- Place a workable camera at eye level inside the business, aimed at the front door (best quality possible)


## Interior Opportunities

- You can greet all customers as they enter
- Make eye contact
- Ask open ended questions
- Make transactions personal
- Be aware of who is inside the business at all times
- Watch for suspicious persons or activities
- Keep the business clean \& views unobstructed
- Interior and exterior should be well lit
- Do not block view throughout the parking lot with display items, posters or signs


## Enforce Store Policies

- Clearly posted rules and policies eliminate confusion


## Exterior Opportunities

- Increase visibility from all angles
- Ambient lighting
- Trim landscaping to avoid hiding spaces
- Eye level cameras
- Place window posters, signs properly as not to obstruct your views of exterior activities.
- Control access in and around your business
- Keep rear doors locked
- Keep doors locked when the business is closed
- Keep the dumpster areas lit and locked
- Recognize suspicious activity
- Watch for people loitering, before or after business hours
- Look for unoccupied vehicles
- Watch for people wearing clothing "out of season"
- TRUST YOUR INSTINCTS


## Vulnerabilities

- Taking out the trash
- Opening and Closing
- Have specific rules for your employees
- Vary your daily routines
- Always remember: Safety in numbers


## During a Robbery

- Cooperate, don't agitate the situation by resisting
- Try to remain calm
- DO NOT talk or ask questions
- DO NOT stare
- Expect to be threatened
- Keep hands in plain sight
- Activate alarm only if able to do so safely


## After a Robbery

- DO NOT give chase or follow suspect(s)
- Activate alarm if you hadn't already
- Call 911 and say "I've just been robbed"
- Stay on the line to answer all questions
- Lock all the doors and put up a "Closed Due to Emergency" sign until the police arrive
- DO NOT allow anyone to leave or enter until the police arrive
- Move the person who was robbed to a quiet place
- DO NOT touch anything! Try to preserve the crime scene
- DO NOT discuss observations with anyone but the police
- Distribute "Suspect Description Forms" to be completed individually by all witnesses (in packet from the Police Dept.)
- Give the forms to the police upon arrival.

# N O T I C E

## This Business Complies

### with the Raleigh Police

### Department’s Robbery

### Suppression Initiative.

### 2008 - 2009

![img-9.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-20/img-9.jpeg)

![img-10.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-20/img-10.jpeg)

![img-11.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-20/img-11.jpeg)

# Appendix E 

| GENDER | GÉNERO |
| :-- | :-- |
| MALE | HOMBRE |
| FEMALE | MUJER |
| RACE | LA RAZA |

SUSPECT DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPCIÓN DE SOSPECHOSO

| OTHER ITEMS | OTRAS COSAS |
| :-- | :-- |
| GLASSES | GAFAS |
| SUNGLASSES | GAFAS DEL SOL |
| BASEBALL HAT | GORRA |
| MOUSTACHE | BIGOTE |
| BEARD | BARBA |
| MASK | MÁSCARA |
| TOBOGGAN | GORRO TEJIDO |
| SUSPECT LEFT... | SUSPECHOSO SALIO... |
| ON FOOT | A PIE |
| RUNNING | CORRIENDO |
| IN A VEHICLE | EN VEHÍCULO |
| UNKNOWN | NO SÉ |
| VEHICLES | VEHÍCULOS |
| CAR | CARRO |
| TWO DOOR | DOS PUERTAS |
| FOUR DOOR | CUATRO PUERTAS |
| VAN | VAN / FURGONETA |
| MINI VAN | MINI VAN |
| LARGE TRUCK | CAMIÓN |
| PICK-UP | PICK-UP / CAMIONETTA |
| MOTORCYCLE | MOTO |
| BICYCLE | BICICLETA |
| WRECKER | GRÚA |

![img-12.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-20/img-12.jpeg)

| HAI | CABELLO / PELO |
| :--: | :--: |
| BALD | CALVO |
| SHORT | CORTO |
| MEDIUM | MEDIANO |
| LONG | LARGO |
| DREDS | TRENZAS |
| BLOND | RUBIO |
| BROWN | CAFÉ / CASTAÑO |
| RED | ROJO |
| BLACK | NEGRO |
| GREY | CANOSO |
| CLOTHING | ROPA |
| T-SHIRT | CAMISETA |
| SHIRT | CAMISA |
| LONG SLEEVE | CON MANGAS LARGAS |
| JEANS | JEANS |
| SHORTS | PANTALONES CORTOS |
| HEAVY COAT | ABRIGO |
| SWEATSHIRT | SUDADERA |
| HOODIE | SUDADERA CON CAPUCHA |

![img-13.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-20/img-13.jpeg)

# Appendix E 

![img-14.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-20/img-14.jpeg)

# Appendix F 

## ROBBERY CHECKLIST

BUSINESS NAME $\qquad$ ADDRESS $\qquad$

CASE \# $\qquad$ DATE/TIME $\qquad$ SUPERVISOR IN CHARGE $\qquad$

## ON SCENE SUPERVISOR TO COMPLETE APPLICABLE INFORMATION AND ENSURE THAT PROTOCOLS ARE ADHERED TO AND DOCUMENTED ACCORDINGLY

## INITIAL OFFICERS ON SCENE

$\qquad$ , $\qquad$ , $\qquad$ , $\qquad$
Utilize in-car camera system to record video of the scene.
Remove and separate victims / witnesses to avoid contamination of scene.
Limit number of officers in the crime scene.
Update suspect description along with escape route. Obtain detailed descriptions regarding suspect, clothing, vehicle and weapon.
Coordinate and communicate with detectives.
Never be reluctant to share information and mention your thoughts on the incident.

## CRIME SCENE SECURED BY ( USE TAPE ) $\qquad$ , $\qquad$

## CRIME SCENE RECORDER $\qquad$ \& SECURITY

Maintain interior crime scene; path from entry point to clerk/counter; counter tops, doors, floors, etc. Be mindful of evidence preservation and overall crime scene integrity.

## CANVAS CONDUCTED BY

$\qquad$ , $\qquad$ , $\qquad$ , $\qquad$ , $\qquad$
Exterior / Interior cameras of nearby businesses that may have captured suspects.
Ask detailed questions and never dismiss information that may be significant.
Detective follow-up with viable leads. Supervisor briefed of canvas results.
Tag numbers recorded, vehicle color, make and model.

## PERIMETER UNITS ASSIGNED

$\qquad$ , $\qquad$ , $\qquad$
Check likely escape routes or hiding places, nearby hotels/motels
RESPONDING K-9 $\qquad$ , CCBI CONTACTED BY $\qquad$
PERIMETER SEARCH $\qquad$ , $\qquad$ , $\qquad$ , $\qquad$

## REMEMBER TO

DEBRIEF ALL ARRESTEES IN ORDER TO OBTAIN ROBBERY INFORMATION. DOCUMENT YOUR ASSIGNMENTS \& ACTIVITIES IN KOPS

ONCE COMPLETED, PLEASE HAND THIS FORM TO AN ON-SCENE DETECTIVE.

![img-15.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-20/img-15.jpeg)

February 10, 2009

![img-16.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-20/img-16.jpeg)

# U.S. Attorney's Office Receives 'Chief's Citation'

On February 5, Chief Dolan presented the members of the U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District of North Carolina, with a Chief's Citation for their contribution to federally prosecuting numerous suspects and sending a clear message to Raleigh's criminal element that violent crimes will be rigorously prosecuted.

Since February 2006, a total of 137 suspects have had their cases adopted and reviewed by federal prosecutors. These suspects, many of whom are gang members, have been charged federally and indicted on serious weapons, narcotics, and robbery offenses. The successful prosecution of these offenders has earned them an average incarceration sentence of 125 months.

During 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District of North Carolina, in cooperation with RPD and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, adopted numerous robbery offenses for federal prosecution and adjudication. Specifically, this involved 29 suspects and encompassed 72 robbery cases in the Raleigh area alone.

![img-17.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-20/img-17.jpeg)

*Chief Dolan presents the Chief's Citation to U.S. Attorney George Holding.*

![img-18.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-20/img-18.jpeg)

![img-19.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/09-20/img-19.jpeg)

*Left: Captain Earnhardt thanks the members of the U.S. Attorney's Office for their help with successfully getting repeat offenders off the streets of Raleigh.*

*Right: Chief Dolan, Major Grayson, and Lt. Nichol express their appreciation to George Holding, U.S. Attorney, and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jane Jackson, Eric Goulian, and Ethan Ontjes for their continuing support of RPD's efforts to federally prosecute violent offenders.*

Article and photos by Laura Hourigan